Experts decry backroom political deals

Experts decry backroom political deals

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Deals among the political parties reached outside the House of
Representatives over the amendment of the 1945 Constitution will
only undermine public participation in the process and devalue
the meaning of democracy, experts have said.

They said the recent backroom deal between leaders of the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) and
Golkar on direct presidential elections would encourage people to
speculate about who had offered what.

Therefore, both the PDI Perjuangan and Golkar must explain the
details of their deal to the public.

"To avoid backroom deals between party leaders, the details of
their agreements must be made public," said Jimly Asshidiqqie of
the University of Indonesia (UI) here on Sunday.

Fellow analyst Arbi Sanit claimed that political horse-trading
outside the legislature would only lead to political
conspiracies.

He suggested that the members of the political elite conduct
their negotiations inside the House of Representatives and ensure
that the public know exactly what results had been achieved.

Legislator Hamdan Zoelva of the Islamic-oriented Crescent and
Star Party (PBB) concurred, saying that both PDI Perjuangan and
Golkar must explain the results of their negotiations as part of
their accountability to the people.

PDI Perjuangan and Golkar, the two biggest factions in the
People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) with 181 and 151 seats
respectively, will play major roles in the Annual Session of the
Assembly scheduled for August.

The two parties reached an agreement on direct presidential
elections in which PDI Perjuangan moved away from its earlier
position that the second round of a presidential election should
be decided on by the MPR.

They agreed that the people would have the final say in the
second round, which would be required if none of the presidential
vice presidential candidates won a simple majority in the first
round. Only the top two tickets would be eligible to participate
in the run-off.

The article on direct presidential elections is one of the
most contentious articles contained in the fourth amendment
package. Another contentious article is the one on the
composition of the MPR.

The agreement between Golkar and PDI Perjuangan has led to
speculation that Golkar still owes PDI Perjuangan a favor for the
latter's abstention in a recent vote against the establishment of
a House special inquiry into a Rp 40 billion (US$4.4 million)
scandal involving Golkar chairman Akbar Tandjung.

Some speculate that Golkar will likely support PDI
Perjuangan's stance on the composition of the MPR. PDI Perjuangan
has been fighting for the inclusion of interest groups in the
MPR, which in practice would allow non-elected representatives of
the military and the police to sit in the Assembly.

Both PDI Perjuangan and Golkar have denied that there were any
concessions behind the agreement, claiming that it was designed
to avoid deadlock at the MPR's Annual Session, which will decide
on whether to adopt the fourth amendment package.

Meanwhile, lobbying of the Assembly's ad hoc constitutional
amendment committee means there is an increasing likelihood that
the presence of interest groups in the MPR will be accommodated.

Although no decision has been made, the changing of the
alternatives in the draft document reveal a strong possibility
that this will be the case.

The draft of the fourth amendment package issued in April by
the ad hoc committee stipulates that the MPR shall consist of
members of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Regional
Representatives Council (DPD) elected at a general election, plus
the interest group as further provided for by law.

But the draft issued on June 28 shows some modifications, and
states that the members of the interest group shall be elected by
the House as further provided for by law.

Hamdan, a member of the ad hoc committee, acknowledged that
the issue of the interest group had been discussed but said that
no decision had been made as yet.

Jimly said the presence of the interest group should be
maintained to ensure that all elements of society were
represented in the MPR.

He emphasized, however, that the role of the interest group
should be downgraded to merely playing a role in the deliberation
of constitutional amendments.